I have struggled to find anything to write about today. I don’t know enough about economics to comment on the adjusted predicted growth forecast or whether cutting public spending will, potentially, lead to a ‘double-dip’ recession. I haven’t made up my mind about Obama’s allegedly ‘anti-British’ rhetoric. There are plenty of news stories about on which I have mild opinions, but I didn’t feel competent enough to write about any of them. This one, on the other hand, I do.
This comment piece was in the Guardian today. It is a real life affected by a current news story. Last week the Home Office announced that migrants wanting to settle in Britain will have to take an English test prior to applying or as part of the application process. Either way, if you want to live in Britain you must speak English.
About ten years ago I would have shouted from the rooftops that it was about time an English-speaking country stood up for the English language. A favourite argument might be “I would learn Spanish if I went to Mexico; why shouldn’t they be required to learn English?! Harrumph.” I’ve since mellowed, matured and realised just how incredibly backwards I used to be.
Now I would argue that, while I completely understand the sentiment and fear of ‘sham’ marriages behind the new requirement, this is arguably a rather xenophobic rule. If my husband had been French I would have learned French; there is no denying that. A point to remember, though, is that most people learn languages best, become fluent in them, by living in that country. By using the language on a daily basis it becomes second-nature. You’re not learning a language; you’re living the language and the culture.
This story also touched me because I’ve been affected by the immigration rules in this country. When my husband and I decided to get married we had to apply to the Home Office for permission to marry. My husband, as a British citizen, had to apply to a government department for permission to marry an American with whom he had fallen in love. We were 13 days late with our application as I needed at least three months remaining on my then-student visa and were turned down.
Because of this I had to quit my job and fly back to America to apply to the British Consulate for a fiancee visa. This took around six weeks and somewhere in the region of £250. This was in addition to the £150 already spent on the permission application and another £400-500 for a flight. The visa was granted and I flew back to the UK and married my husband.
Two days after the wedding we were back at the Home Office applying for my limited leave to remain. This gave me residence for two years, meaning I could work again. That cost another £500. By the time we had finished all of the applications and paid for an unnecessary flight to America, we’d spent the equivalent of some couples’ whole wedding budget. We didn’t have a honeymoon; we went to the Home Office and then straight back to work.
Again, I understood the idea behind this requirement: to try to prevent marriages of convenience for purposes of immigration. But in our case it penalised a legitimate couple. Thankfully it has now been ruled a breach of human rights by the Law Lords as there was no right of appeal if turned down, as we were.
My point is that there are enough hurdles to jump through without having to add an English language test that some people might not pass. Furthermore, they haven’t outlined the specific requirements. It will affect non-EU citizens so, presumably, that includes Canada, Australia and New Zealand: the other English-speaking countries in the world. Are they going to require English tests of migrants from these countries? It would be very unfair to have someone from, say, India sat next to someone from America taking the same English test. But if you don’t require everyone to take the test, isn’t that also just as unfair?
The arrogance in assuming that someone will be able to master the English language well enough to perform on a test just because they have married a native English-speaker is overwhelming. I will be very interested to hear the specifics of this requirement in the future, as well as the problems it’s likely to cause. This woman’s story will be just one of many and that is very unfortunate in a liberal democratic society in the 21st century.